(2017) Sgca 69

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the
court and/or redaction pursuant to the publishers duty in compliance

with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law
Reports.
Public Prosecutor
v
BDB
[2017] SGCA 69
Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2016

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JA and Steven Chong JA
6 July 2017
Criminal Law Offences Grievous Hurt
Criminal Law Statutory offences Children and Young Persons Act

Ill-treatment of child or young person
Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Sentencing Principles

29 November 2017
Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):
Introduction
1 This appeal stemmed from a tragic case. Over a period of more than two
years, the respondent, BDB (the Respondent), repeatedly abused her own
child. On the last of these occasions, the child was abused to such an extent that
he died. This tragedy was exacerbated by the fact that the abuse continued even
after the involvement of the Child Protective Service (the CPS) of the
Ministry of Social and Family Development (the MSF) when the matter was
first brought to the attention of the authorities. The Respondent was separated
from the child for a time thereafter, but she later regained custody of the child
PP v BDB [2017] SGCA 69
and then continued to ill-treat him and engage in a pattern of conduct that can
only be described as cruel.
2 Following investigations carried out after the childs death, the

Respondent was charged under s 325 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev
Ed) with voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the child, and under s 5 of the
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 2001 Rev Ed) (the CYPA) with ill-
treating him. She pleaded guilty before a High Court judge (the Judge), who
meted out an aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment: see Public
Prosecutor v BDB [2016] 5 SLR 1232 (the GD). The sole question in this
appeal by the Prosecution was whether that sentence was manifestly inadequate.
At the conclusion of the oral arguments, we allowed the Prosecutions appeal
and gave our brief reasons. We indicated that we would elaborate on those
reasons and furnish our detailed grounds of decision in due course. This, we
now do.
3 In these grounds, we examine the relevant sentencing principles for

violent offences against children and young persons that lead to serious injury
or death. Many, if not most, of these cases have resulted in charges being
brought not for culpable homicide, but for voluntarily causing grievous hurt
under s 322 of the Penal Code and punishable under s 325 of that Act, and/or
for ill-treating a child or young person under s 5(1) read with s 5(5)(b) of the
CYPA. We therefore consider the prevailing sentencing precedents for these
two offences. We then set out the approach that should guide the courts in this
context. In that light, we explain our decision in this appeal. We also urge, in a
closing coda, legislative reform to afford the courts the power to impose
enhanced penalties for certain offences against vulnerable victims, in particular,
children and young persons, in view of their heinous nature.
2
The factual background
The Respondent and the charges against her
4 The Respondent is a 35-year-old female Singaporean. At the time of her

arrest on 2 August 2014, she was residing at a flat in Eunos Crescent (the Eunos
flat) with her two children, a seven-year-old daughter (P) and a four-year-
old son (A), who was the victim of the abuse.
5 A total of six charges, two under s 325 of the Penal Code and four under
s 5 of the CYPA, were brought against the Respondent. The Prosecution
eventually proceeded with only the two s 325 charges (the first and sixth
charges) and two of the CYPA charges (the third and fourth charges), with the
remaining two CYPA charges (the second and fifth charges) taken into
consideration for sentencing purposes. The four charges which were proceeded
with read as follows:
That you, [BDB],
1st Charge
on 1 August 2014, at [the Eunos flat], did cause grievous hurt
to [A], to wit, by doing the following:
1) Using your hands to push him on his chest area
several times which resulted in him falling and
hitting his head on the ground;
2) Using your legs to step on his knees;
3) Using your right hand to choke him; and
4) Pushing your right hand against his neck until
he was lifted off the ground,
which caused the said [A] to subsequently die from head
injuries, and you have thereby committed an offence
punishable under section 325 of the Penal Code .

3
3rd Charge
on the afternoon of 30 July 2014, at [the Eunos flat], being a
person who has custody of a child, namely, [A], male, 4 years
old at the time of the incident, did ill-treat the said child, to wit,
by using both hands to push him between his shoulder and
chest area which resulted in him falling backwards and hitting
the back of his head against the television console table, and
you have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1) of the
[CYPA], and punishable under section 5(5)(b) of the said Act.
4th Charge
sometime at night on 30 July 2014, at [the Eunos flat], being a
person who has custody of a child, namely, [A], male, 4 years
old at the time of the incident, did ill-treat the said child, to wit,
by kicking him at his waist area and stepping on his stomach
with both of your feet for a few seconds after he fell, and you
have thereby committed an offence under section 5(1) of the
[CYPA], and punishable under section 5(5)(b) of the said Act.

6th Charge
sometime in March 2012, at [the Eunos flat], did cause grievous
hurt to [A], to wit, by doing the following:
1) Using your hands to push him and stepping on
his ribs after he fell to the floor; and
2) Twisting and pulling his hand,
which caused the said [A] to sustain fractures to his left elbow,
left calf, and his right 8th 11th ribs, [and] you have thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 325 of the
Penal Code .
6 The two CYPA charges which were taken into consideration for
sentencing purposes concerned, respectively, an incident on 31 July 2014 in
which the Respondent pushed A and caused him to fall (the second charge), and
an incident sometime in June 2014 in which the Respondent lifted A by the neck
before dropping him to the ground (the fifth charge).
7 We set out below the events relating to the four charges which were
proceeded with.
4
The events relating to the charges proceeded with
The first reported instance of abuse in March 2012 (the facts relating to the
sixth charge)
8 Chronologically, the events which gave rise to the sixth charge were the
first to occur. Sometime in March 2012, when A was just two years and five
months old, the Respondent was trying to teach him the alphabet. When he did
not or could not follow her instructions, she became irritated with him and
pushed him. Following further instructions that A failed to comply with, the
Respondent pushed him a second time, causing him to fall to the floor. The
Respondent then stepped on his ribs. Shortly after this, A asked if he could do
some drawing. The Respondent gave him some paper, but A scribbled on the
sofa instead. The Respondent became angry, and twisted and pulled As hand
very hard.
9 On 12 March 2012, the Respondent brought A to KK Womens and

Childrens Hospital (KK Hospital), where he was admitted from 12 March to
2 April 2012. At the hospital, the Respondent lied and claimed that As injuries
were a consequence of his having fallen twice: once down a flight of stairs at
home the day before, and prior to that, in the playground two weeks earlier. A
was found to have multiple fractures (on his left elbow, left calf and right eighth
to eleventh ribs), haematomas on his forehead and the back of his head, several
small healing bruises on various parts of his body, as well as other healed linear
scars on his lower legs and lower abdomen. Developmental assessment also
revealed a moderate level of expressive and receptive speech delay.
The involvement of the CPS
10 Arising from this incident, which was also the first reported instance of
the Respondents abuse of A, A was referred to the MSF for suspected non-
5
accidental injuries. The CPS investigated As case and interviewed the

Respondent, as well as As father and P. Upon As discharge from KK Hospital
on 2 April 2012, he was initially placed in the care of foster caregivers identified
by the CPS. Three months later, on 2 July 2012, A was placed under the care of
his maternal uncle and the latters wife (the maternal relatives), who were
assessed to be suitable for this purpose.
11 A few months later, in November 2012, the Respondent and P moved in

to live with the maternal relatives and A. The CPS noted that during this period,
no recurrence of abuse was reported. With no evident child protection concerns,
the CPS treated the case as closed on 5 February 2014.
The move to the Eunos flat
12 Sometime in the first half of 2014, the Respondent and her two children
moved to the Eunos flat. It appears that this came about because of pressure
from the maternal relatives, who were unhappy that there were too many people
living at their home.
Ill-treatment in July 2014 (the facts relating to the third and fourth charges)
13 The abuse of A resumed shortly after the move to the Eunos flat. On
30 July 2014, the Respondent pushed A while they were at the Eunos flat,
causing him to fall backwards and hit the back of his head against a television
console table. This transpired evidently because the Respondent became angry
and frustrated over As failure to recite certain numbers that she had asked him
to.
14 Later in the evening on the same day, the Respondent kicked A in the
waist area. A had upset the Respondent because he had moved his bowels on
6
the floor. After A fell as a result of being kicked, the Respondent stood on his
stomach with both of her feet for a few seconds before stepping away. These
two incidents on 30 July 2014 formed the factual backdrop of, respectively, the
third and fourth charges.
The events on 1 August 2014 which resulted in As death (the facts relating to
the first charge)
15 Two days later, on 1 August 2014, the Respondent and A returned home
shortly after noon after A had finished school for the day. Only the Respondent
and A were present in the Eunos flat at the time. The Respondent asked A to
recite some numbers in English and Malay, but he could not do so in Malay.
Angry and disappointed, the Respondent shouted at A. She then ignored him for
some time.
16 Meanwhile, A went to take a nap. He was awakened at about 4.30pm

and was asked by the Respondent once again to recite the numbers in Malay.
When he was unable to do so, the Respondent became agitated and pushed him
on his chest. He fell backwards and hit his head on the floor. He stood up and
tried to recite the numbers, but was unsuccessful. The Respondent then ignored
A and walked towards the kitchen, with A following her and attempting to recite
the numbers yet again. The Respondent turned and pushed A again on his chest,
causing him to fall and hit his head on the ground again. The Respondent then
stepped on As knees with both legs repeatedly three or four times.
17 As it was approaching the time for the Respondent to fetch P home from
school, she ordered A to shower and change after she had finished bathing.
While the Respondent was in the shower, A stood outside and continued to
recite the numbers wrongly. The Respondent ignored him and went to her room
to change after her shower. While she was in her room, she heard A slamming
7
the cover of the toilet bowl. She went to ask A what he was doing in the
bathroom, but he did not answer. Instead, he continued mumbling the numbers.
Frustrated, the Respondent choked A on his neck using her right hand and
pushed him to the floor.
18 The Respondent then left A, went to the living room and told A that she
did not want to hear him reciting the numbers anymore. She also told A that he
could either accompany her to fetch P home from school or stay at home. A
indicated that he wanted to accompany her. She thus went to take her handbag
from her room. By then, it was about 6.10pm. When the Respondent came out
of her room, A was still not ready to leave and was still reciting the numbers. In
anger, the Respondent choked A again by pushing her right hand against his
neck and lifting him off the ground with his back against the wall. Seeing that
A was gasping for air, the Respondent let go and A fell to the floor. At this point,
A was no longer moving. The Respondent carried him to the sofa, but found
him weak and unresponsive.
19 At 6.35pm, the Respondent called her sister-in-law for assistance and

asked her to go over to the Eunos flat. She made the call from the void deck of
her block of flats because she could not find her mobile phone. On her way back
to the Eunos flat, she met her 14-year-old neighbour at the lift lobby and asked
the latter for help. The neighbour arrived at the flat and noticed A lying face up
on the sofa. Despite his eyes being open, he was unresponsive. The neighbour
managed to detect his pulse and also noticed bruises on his chest. The
Respondent told the neighbour that A had fallen and hit his head on the floor.
The neighbour advised her to call an ambulance.
20 At around 6.50pm, the Respondents sister-in-law arrived and noticed

that As mouth was filled with foam. She also noticed reddish marks on his
8
neck, a reddish bump on his forehead and a very big bump on the back of his
head. She and the Respondent rushed A to a nearby clinic. After an initial
examination, A was conveyed by ambulance to Changi General Hospital
(CGH), where he underwent an emergency craniotomy and evacuation of a
subdural blood clot (a blood clot in the space between the skull and the brain).
Apart from his head injuries, various bruises on As body at different stages of
healing were observed. After the operation, A was transferred from CGH to KK
Hospital for further management the next day, 2 August 2014. There, he
remained in a critical condition and was put on life support. He subsequently
developed further complications. A conference was held with his family
members, who decided to take him off life support in view of the poor prognosis.
A eventually passed away on 5 August 2014 at 4.10pm.
21 In the autopsy report, As cause of death was identified as head injury

consisting of bruising of the scalp, a skull fracture and left subdural
haemorrhage. The forensic pathologist concluded that the head injury had been
caused by blunt force trauma.
Psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent
22 After her arrest on 2 August 2014, the Respondent was first examined
by Dr Subhash Gupta (Dr Gupta), a consultant with the General and Forensic
Psychiatry Division of the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). In his report
dated 2 September 2014, Dr Gupta opined that although the Respondent had
several personality aberrations, these did not amount to a recognisable mental
disorder and the Respondent was therefore fit to plead. Dr Gupta also noted that
the Respondents personality aberrations, which he listed as recurrent
suspicions regarding [the] sexual fidelity of [her] spouse/partner, tendency to
act impulsively, very low tolerance [for] frustration, a low threshold for
9
discharge of aggression, and marked proneness to blame others, made her more
likely than others to cope maladaptively when faced with stressful situations.
23 Dr Tommy Tan (Dr Tan), the defence expert from Novena Psychiatry
Clinic, subsequently examined the Respondent. In his report dated 3 May 2015,
he opined that the Respondent suffered from both Aspergers Syndrome and
Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) of peri-partum onset. Dr Gupta
considered Dr Tans report and issued a clarification report dated 16 February
2016 in which he provided his response to Dr Tans report. In essence, Dr Gupta
concluded that the Respondent did not suffer from either disorder at or around
the time of the offences.
24 The Prosecution and the Defence subsequently agreed to have the

Respondent examined by Dr Sajith Sreedharan Geetha (Dr Geetha), another
doctor at the IMH and a specialist in autism spectrum disorders including
Aspergers Syndrome. Dr Geetha was only asked to opine on whether the
Respondent suffered from Aspergers Syndrome, and his conclusion was that
she did not.
The proceedings and the decision below
25 The Respondent was charged as stated at [5] above, and pleaded guilty
on 28 March 2016 to the four charges which the Prosecution proceeded with.
The Judge ordered a Newton hearing to ascertain the Respondents psychiatric
state at the material time as he considered that this would have a significant
bearing on the sentence that should be imposed. The Judge also directed
Dr Gupta and Dr Tan to interview more witnesses so that both psychiatrists
would, as far as possible, be on an equal footing in terms of the number of
witnesses they had interviewed and the information that they had access to.
Dr Gupta and Dr Tan did as directed, but did not change their initial views.
10
During the Newton hearing, a joint session involving all three experts was
conducted. At the end of the Newton hearing, the Judge sentenced the
Respondent on 29 July 2016 to an aggregate term of eight years imprisonment.
26 The aggravating factors which the Judge took into account in arriving at
his decision were: (a) the young age of A; (b) the relationship between the
Respondent and A; (c) the severity of As injuries; and (d) the multitude of acts
of violence involved in each of the incidents that formed the subject matter of a
charge. Noting that these factors already presented themselves in the precedent
cases [emphasis in original], the Judge held that there was no basis for
imposing on the Respondent a sentence harsher than the range of sentences
imposed in those cases (see the GD at [24]).
27 Before turning to the mitigating factors which, in his view, were absent
from the precedent cases and warranted a lower sentence in the Respondents
case, the Judge addressed the Prosecutions submission that the foremost
sentencing principles in this case were deterrence and retribution (see the GD
at [25]). He accepted that retribution was a relevant sentencing principle.
However, he did not accept that specific deterrence was a sentencing principle
that could feature heavily in the present case because the Respondent had
committed the offences out of anger and [on] the spur of the moment (see the
GD at [25][27]). He took the view that where the offences were crimes of
passion, it would generally be inappropriate to invoke deterrence as a relevant
sentencing consideration (see the GD at [27]).
28 The Judge then analysed the mitigating factors which he considered

relevant, namely: (a) the Respondents psychiatric condition; (b) her inability to
cope with stressful situations; and (c) her remorse (see the GD at [28]). With
regard to the Respondents psychiatric condition, the Judge found that the
Respondent was not suffering from either Aspergers Syndrome or MDD at the
11
time of the offences. He preferred Dr Guptas evidence on the issue of

Aspergers Syndrome; and on the issue of MDD, he held that there was
insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent was suffering from this
condition at the material time (see the GD at [30][32]). However, he also found
that the Respondent had personality aberrations which had a clear and
unmistakable causal link with her offending conduct (see the GD at [35]), and
considered that mitigating weight should be accorded to these personality
aberrations.
29 In respect of the Respondents inability to cope with stressful situations,

the Judge noted that the offences had been committed at a time when the
Respondent was left to take care of A by herself after moving to the Eunos flat.
Prior to the move, the Respondent had had the help of various family members
(such as the maternal relatives) in looking after A. Although the exact time when
the Respondent moved to the Eunos flat in the first half of 2014 was disputed
by the parties, the Judge did not consider this to be important. He highlighted
the fact that the Respondent had been taking care of A on her own at the material
time in July 2014 (see the GD at [41]), and considered that her ability to cope
with all that being As primary caregiver entailed was not dependent on the
length of time which she had had to adjust to her new living circumstances at
the Eunos flat. The Judge took this view essentially because he did not think the
Respondents personality aberrations would change with the passage of time.
He considered that these personality aberrations, coupled with the Respondents
inability to bond with A, had mitigating value. He also regarded the
Respondents financial and social problems as stress-inducing factors that
aggravated her personality aberrations. In all the circumstances, the Judge
concluded that the Respondent was unable to cope with her situation and this
mitigated her culpability (see the GD at [42] and [44]).
12
30 The Judge imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment for the first
charge and two years imprisonment for the sixth charge as he considered that
the latter involved harm of a considerably less serious nature than the former
(see the GD at [54][55]). As for the two CYPA charges, he imposed
imprisonment terms of six months and one year for the third and fourth charges
respectively (see the GD at [56][57]). The Judge ordered the sentence for the
fourth charge to run consecutively with that for the first charge, with the rest of
the sentences to run concurrently. The aggregate term of imprisonment imposed
was thus eight years, and this was backdated to 2 August 2014, the date of the
Respondents arrest (see the GD at [62]).
The parties arguments on appeal
31 The Prosecution appealed on the ground that the Judge erred in law in
his approach to determining the appropriate sentences. There were several
aspects to its argument. The Prosecution contended, first, that mitigating weight
should not have been accorded to the Respondents personality aberrations, and,
second, that it was wrong to disregard deterrence as a relevant sentencing
consideration because, among other things, the Respondents offences were not
crimes of passion. Third, the Prosecution submitted that the Judge erred in
placing little weight on several aggravating factors which were relevant. Fourth,
the Prosecution argued that the aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment
was manifestly inadequate because it was not commensurate with the
sentencing precedents in cases involving violence against a young child that
resulted in death. The Prosecution sought the following sentences in place of
those imposed by the Judge:
(a) for the first charge, at least eight years imprisonment;
(b) for the third charge, at least 12 months imprisonment;
13
(c) for the fourth charge, at least 18 months imprisonment; and
(d) for the sixth charge, at least four years imprisonment.
The Prosecution further submitted that the Judge should have ordered the
sentences for the first, fourth and sixth charges to run consecutively, and sought
an aggregate sentence of at least 12 years imprisonment.
32 As against this, the Respondents counsel submitted that the Judge

correctly appreciated the relevant mitigating factors, and contended that the
aggregate sentence of eight years imprisonment was sufficient and reasonable
because it adequately reflected the gravity of the Respondents wrongdoing.
While each mitigating factor, considered individually, might not have warranted
a reduced sentence, an unfortunate concatenation of factors contributed to the
significant pressure which the Respondent faced at the time of the offences.
These factors were: (a) the Respondents personality aberrations; (b) her
inability to cope and bond with A; (c) her financial and social problems; and
(d) the lack of support which she encountered in caring for A. The Respondents
offences were, as the Judge rightly found, committed out of anger and in
moments of hot-blooded irrationality [emphasis in original]. The sentencing
considerations of general and specific deterrence should therefore not feature
significantly in the present case.
The relevant sentencing principles
33 We first deal with the relevant sentencing principles before we turn to

explain the reasons for our decision in this appeal.
14
Offences involving abuse of vulnerable victims
34 The law recognises the special need to protect certain groups of

vulnerable persons, such as the handicapped, the incapacitated, children and the
elderly. An offenders culpability will generally be viewed as enhanced where
the victim is vulnerable. This is because the offender will, in such
circumstances, be seen as exploiting or taking advantage of a relatively helpless
person. In general, the more vulnerable the victim, the more culpable the
offender: see Andrew Ashworth, Sentencing and Criminal Justice (Cambridge
University Press, 6th Ed, 2015) at pp 168169. Our own sentencing
jurisprudence has long emphasised that the victims vulnerability is a significant
aggravating consideration in sentencing: see Purwanti Parji v Public
Prosecutor [2005] 2 SLR(R) 220 at [30] and Public Prosecutor v Teo Chee Seng
[2005] 3 SLR(R) 250 (Teo Chee Seng) at [9].
35 In the specific context of violence against children, in Public Prosecutor

v AFR [2011] 3 SLR 833 (AFR), we made it clear to all parents and caregivers
that such violence would not be tolerated and would be met with the full force
of the law (at [12]). We also observed in the earlier decision of Public
Prosecutor v UI [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 (UI), in the context of the sexual abuse
of young victims, that (at [33]):
The ultimate relationship of trust and authority is that

between a parent and his or her child. There exists between
them a human relationship in which the parent has a moral
obligation to look after and care for the child. In our view, the
level of confidence and trust that a child naturally reposes in
his or her parent entails that a parent who betrays that trust
and harms the child stands at the furthest end of the
spectrum of guilt [emphasis in original in italics; emphasis
added in bold italics]
In our judgment, these observations apply with equal force to the distinct but
closely analogous situation of physical abuse of children.
15
36 By maintaining an uncompromising stance against offenders who abuse

vulnerable victims, several objectives may be served. First, this helps to deter
other like-minded members of the public, as was observed in Public Prosecutor
v Law Aik Meng [2007] 2 SLR(R) 814 (Law Aik Meng) at [24(b)] and AFR at
[12] and [30]. Second, by denouncing such conduct through the imposition of
stiff sentences, we give expression to public outrage at the fact that the offenders
in question have taken advantage of their victims vulnerability: see Kow Keng
Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2009)
(Sentencing Principles in Singapore) at para 16.060. Third, the sentencing
consideration of retribution is engaged in cases where serious violence is
inflicted on a vulnerable victim. Fourth, imposing a severe sentence in such
cases helps to ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the offenders
culpability: see AFR at [32].
37 Among vulnerable victims, young victims are notable for several

reasons. More often than not, there will be a gross physical disparity at play,
and as a result, the victims will often be defenceless and unable to protect
themselves. Moreover, the abuse will often be inflicted by parents or guardians
abusing their position of trust and authority, and this makes the abuse difficult
to detect and prevent. As a consequence, the abuse can continue over a sustained
period of time, resulting in the accumulation of injuries with grievous
consequences. For this reason, deterrence is an especially weighty consideration
in offences against young victims. Indeed, when a child is abused by a person
who is entrusted with the care of that child, this is itself a further aggravating
factor: see Public Prosecutor v Firdaus bin Abdullah [2010] 3 SLR 225
(Firdaus) at [19]. Violent acts against children are particularly odious when
they are committed within the setting of a familial relationship because they
destroy the bonds of trust and interdependency that exist between family
16
members: see Public Prosecutor v Luan Yuanxin [2002] 1 SLR(R) 613 at [17]
and UI at [33].
38 The most severe cases of abuse of young victims are those resulting in
the death of the victim. Many of these cases have been prosecuted not under the
culpable homicide provisions found in the Penal Code (namely, ss 299 and 300),
but rather, under s 325 for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Despite the
multitude of aggravating circumstances that are commonly found in these cases,
a review of the relevant precedents reveals that in the most serious of these
cases, where a young victims death was caused by a parent or caregiver, the
aggregate imprisonment sentence imposed for the various charges brought
against the offender under s 325 of the Penal Code (and, where applicable, s 5
of the CYPA) ranged from only seven to 12 years. We examine these sentencing
precedents more closely below.
The sentencing framework for cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal
Code
39 Where grievous hurt is voluntarily caused, the offence is typically

prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code, as opposed to under s 323, which
deals generally with cases where simple hurt is voluntarily caused. The
following kinds of hurt are deemed grievous under s 320 of the Penal Code:
(a) emasculation;
(aa) death;
(b) permanent privation of the sight of either eye;
(c) permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;
(d) privation of any member or joint;
(e) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any
member or joint;
(f) permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
17
(g) fracture or dislocation of a bone;

(h) any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the
sufferer to be, during the space of 20 days, in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits;
(i) penetration of the vagina or anus, as the case may be,
of a person without that persons consent, which causes
severe bodily pain.
40 A charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt is much more serious than

one of voluntarily causing simple hurt simply because the injuries contemplated
under s 320 of the Penal Code are serious and debilitating, and extend even to
death. Unsurprisingly, the permitted sentencing range in s 325 is more severe
than that in s 323, and extends to imprisonment of up to ten years and may also
include a fine or caning. As against this, the prescribed sentencing range for
voluntarily causing simple hurt is imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of
up to $5,000, or both.
41 As stated in Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts (LexisNexis,

3rd Ed, 2013) (Sentencing Practice) at p 266, the facts and circumstances of
each offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt vary considerably, and each
case must be evaluated based on its own particular facts:
The different forms of grievous hurt vary in their seriousness. For

example, permanent privation of sight or a bodily part would be
more serious than a simple fracture. The Penal Code
(Amendment) Act [(Act 51 of 2007)] expanded the definition of
grievous hurt by including death and penetration of the
vagina or anus as categories of grievous hurt. Clearly, where
death has been caused , the imposition of a higher sentence
must be considered. In general, the factors that would dominate
sentence are the degree of deliberation; the extent and duration
of the attack; the nature of the injury; and the use of a weapon
(the dangerousness of it). The obvious aggravating factors
would be premeditation, a lengthy application of violence, group
assault, significant injuries, permanence of injuries, the use of
a weapon, a young or otherwise vulnerable victim, abuse of
position, and previous convictions [emphasis added]
18
42 In a similar vein, C K Thakker et al, Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of

Crimes: A Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Bharat Law House,
27th Ed, 2013) states that the sentence to be imposed for voluntarily causing
grievous hurt should vary according to the seriousness of the injury (at vol 2,
p 2088). This stands to reason given the wide range of injuries that may bring
an offence within the ambit of s 325 of the Penal Code. The seriousness of the
hurt or injury caused to the victim is thus a primary indicator of the seriousness
of the offence in determining the appropriate sentence.
The sentencing precedents
43 Before we analyse some of the sentencing precedents under s 325 of the

Penal Code involving offenders who inflicted physical violence on young
victims, we observe that written grounds explaining the sentences imposed were
not issued in most of them (see, eg, the cases discussed at [48], [49] and [53]
below). It follows that their precedential value will be limited: see Keeping
Mark John v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 170 at [18] and Public Prosecutor
v Lim Cheng Ji Alvin [2017] SGHC 183 at [13]. Subject to this, we consider the
precedents in two broad categories below: cases where death was caused, and
cases where non-fatal serious injury was caused.
(1) Cases where death was caused
44 Of the three cases that we considered in which the victim died, written
grounds are available only for Firdaus, and it is to this that we first turn.
45 In Firdaus, a three-year-old child was severely beaten on 14 January

2008 by his mothers boyfriend, who was his caregiver and guardian when his
mother was not around. At the time of the offence, the childs mother was not
present and the offender was thus charged with taking care of the child. The
19
offender lost his temper over the childs persistent crying despite his attempts
to placate the child. The offender shouted at the child and asked the child why
he was so naughty. When the offender pointed to a wall that he had previously
ordered the child to stand in front of as a form of punishment, the child cried
even louder. The offender hit and slapped the child, all the while shouting at the
child to stop. When the child still did not stop crying, the offender punched the
child repeatedly in the face and jabbed upwards at the childs chin before
grabbing the child by the mouth with his hand, lifting him off the ground and
slamming his head into a wall. This head injury led to intracranial haemorrhage
that eventually caused the childs death. This incident formed the basis of a
charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under s 325 of the previous revised
edition of the Penal Code (namely, the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed)
(the 1985 edition of the Penal Code)). The offender also faced two other
charges under s 5(1) of the CYPA: one for grabbing, shaking and biting the
childs penis on the same day, and one for punching the child in the head with
great force two days earlier.
46 For the s 325 charge, the trial judge imposed a sentence of six years
imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. On appeal, Chan Sek Keong CJ
enhanced this sentence and imposed the then maximum term of seven years
imprisonment and 12 strokes of the cane. Chan CJ noted (at [19]) that the fact
that the victim was a young child meant that he was particularly vulnerable
because he was defenceless, and this was treated as an aggravating factor.
Chan CJ also stated (at [18]) that where death, which was generally the most
serious consequence of any offence, was caused, the imposition of the
maximum sentence might be warranted:
Death, it goes without saying, is generally the most serious

consequence of any offence and may warrant the imposition of
a maximum sentence: see, for instance, PP v Fazely bin Rahmat
[2003] 2 SLR(R) 184, where the (then) maximum sentence
20
under s 325 of the Penal Code of seven years imprisonment and

12 strokes of the cane was imposed for each of the two offenders
convicted of causing grievous hurt to a victim for an assault
(together with other gang members) on the victim which [led] to
his death. But the consequence of death alone would not attract
the maximum sentence without more. Factors such as the
manner in which the death was caused, the relationship
between the offender and the victim, the offenders state of mind
or the offenders motives would also go towards the weighing of
whether this particular instance fell within the worst category
of cases for the offence in question. [emphasis added]
47 Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused, the circumstances in

which they were inflicted (including the fact that the offender had intended to
cause physical harm to the child and had in fact caused the childs death when
he should have been caring for his welfare), the offenders lack of remorse and
the absence of mitigating factors, Chan CJ was satisfied that the case before him
fell into the worst category of cases of causing grievous hurt and accordingly
imposed the maximum sentence for the s 325 charge (at [22]).
48 Next, we briefly consider Public Prosecutor v Mohd Azhar Bin Ghapar

District Arrest Cases Nos 53650 of 2010 and others (Mohd Azhar), which was
cited by the Prosecution. We do not regard this case as a useful precedent not
only because of the absence of detailed grounds, but also because the sentences
imposed did not differentiate between the varying degrees of seriousness of the
injuries caused in the incidents that were the subject matter of separate charges
against the offender. In Mohd Azhar, the offender faced, among other charges,
two charges under s 325 of the Penal Code for voluntarily causing grievous hurt
to his girlfriends two-year-old child. The offending conduct that was the
subject matter of one of the s 325 charges resulted in the child suffering an acute
subdural haematoma which, in the event, ended her life. In respect of the other
s 325 charge, the injuries inflicted were fractures of the childs ribs. Despite the
patent difference in the seriousness of the injuries, the district judge imposed
the identical sentence of seven years imprisonment and six strokes of the cane
21
for each of the s 325 charges. In our judgment, this could not be correct in law,
and for this reason, we also did not think the decision could have any
precedential value.
49 Lastly, there is the more recent decision of Public Prosecutor v Zaidah

and Zaini Bin Jamari District Arrest Cases Nos 942245 of 2015 and others
(Zaidah & Zaini). This too is a sentencing decision without written grounds
and so has little, if any, precedential weight. However, this decision does
demonstrate that a sentence at the highest end of the permitted range of
punishment may be warranted where the abuse leads to the death of the victim.
The victim in Zaidah & Zaini was a two-year-old child in the custody of his
mother, the first accused, and under the care of his mothers boyfriend, the
second accused. Each offender faced, along with numerous charges of ill-
treatment under s 5(1) of the CYPA, one charge under s 325 of the Penal Code
for the physical abuse that led to the childs death from a head injury. For the
s 325 charge, the first accused was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, while
the second accused was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and 12 strokes
of the cane. Presumably, the difference between the two offenders
imprisonment sentences was to account for the 12 strokes of the cane that the
first accused was exempted from by reason of s 325(1)(a) of the Criminal
Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (the CPC).
(2) Cases where non-fatal serious injury was caused
50 We turn now to examine the cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal
Code where non-fatal serious injury was caused. We tabulate these cases below
for ease of reference:
22
Imprisonment
S/N Case Injury sentence for s 325
charge
1 Foo Ah Choo v Public Perforations in Two years imposed
Prosecutor Magistrates stomach; injuries by trial judge
Appeal No 384 of 1992 on forehead, (offenders appeal
(Foo Ah Choo) cheek, abdomen, dismissed and
back and limbs; sentence enhanced
three teeth broken to three years and
six months)
2 Cindy Chandra v Public Severe internal Four years
Prosecutor Magistrates head injuries; (offenders appeal
Appeal No 293 of 1996 mental retardation withdrawn)
(Cindy Chandra) and visual loss
3 Public Prosecutor v Fracture of right Six years
Muhammad Yusof Bin rib, among 29
Bachok District Arrest distinct injuries;
Cases Nos 942168 of 2016 hospitalisation for
and others 20 days
4 Public Prosecutor v Skull fracture and Six years
Franklie Tan Guang Wei brain (offenders appeal
[2016] SGDC 263 haemorrhage that dismissed)
(Franklie Tan); necessitated
Magistrates Appeal emergency brain
No 9222 of 2016 surgery to save
childs life;
neurosurgical
follow-up
treatment for up
to two years
51 The first two cases in the above table involved offences prosecuted
under s 325 of the 1985 edition of the Penal Code, which (as noted earlier)
prescribed a maximum imprisonment term of seven years, while the last two
cases were prosecuted under s 325 of the present edition of the Penal Code,
which provides for a maximum imprisonment term of ten years.
23
52 We make three observations. First, the imprisonment sentences that

were imposed in these cases ranged from three years and six months under the
previous sentencing regime to six years under the present sentencing regime.
53 Second, we do not find the older cases relevant or helpful for sentencing
purposes. For one thing, they are decisions without any evident reasoning to
explain the courts considerations, and were decided more than 20 years ago
(indeed, 25 years ago in the case of Foo Ah Choo) under a different sentencing
regime which prescribed a lower maximum imprisonment sentence than that
which currently applies. Further, based on the nature of the injuries sustained
by the victims in the older cases, it seems to us that the sentences imposed in
those cases might have been inadequate. For instance, in Foo Ah Choo, the
offender used canes and a slipper to assault a two-year-old child. The assault
was so severe that it caused the child to suffer a life-threatening injury in the
form of a perforated stomach. The child also had injuries on her forehead, cheek,
abdomen, back and limbs, and lost three of her teeth. In this light, and having
regard to the extreme youth and vulnerability of the victim, it seems to us that
the sentence of three years and six months (after being enhanced on appeal)
might have been inadequate. Similarly, the sentence of four years
imprisonment in Cindy Chandra seems to us to have been unduly lenient having
regard to the severity of the injuries suffered by the child in that case and the
permanence of the harm that was caused: the child became mentally and
visually impaired as a result of the abuse.
54 Third, we note that the trial judges analysis in Franklie Tan rightly
focused on the severity of the injuries suffered by the victim, who was just a
year old at the time of the offences. The judge considered it aggravating that the
injuries were very severe (at [10]), and inferred that considerable force had
been used when the child was pushed off the bed and landed on his head,
24
resulting in a skull fracture that needed emergency brain surgery. After noting
that the custodial sentences imposed in s 325 cases where the victims died as a
result of their head injuries were in the region of seven to nine years
imprisonment (with 12 strokes of the cane where the offenders were male) (at
[15]), the judge took into account the fact that the victim in Franklie Tan
survived and concluded that a sentence of six years imprisonment and six
strokes of the cane was appropriate. The offenders appeal to the High Court
was dismissed.
Indicative starting points based on the seriousness of the injury
55 In the light of the above review of the precedents, we turn to the

sentencing approach to be taken in cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal
Code. The primary sentencing objective in such cases is likely to be deterrence.
Further, retribution may also be relevant as a sentencing consideration where
heinous violence has been inflicted. In our judgment, we think that sentencing
in such cases should be approached in a two-step process as follows:
(a) First, because the seriousness of the injury caused underscores

the inherent mischief targeted by s 325, it is a good indicator of the
gravity of the offence and can guide the court in determining the
indicative starting point for sentencing.
(b) Second, after the indicative starting point has been identified, the
sentencing judge should consider the necessary adjustments upwards or
downwards based on an assessment of the offenders culpability and the
presence of relevant aggravating and/or mitigating factors.
56 In our judgment, given the inherent mischief that underlies the offence
under s 325, and considering that a more severe sentencing range is prescribed
25
for this offence (compared to the offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt
under s 323) precisely because grievous hurt has been caused, the factor that
should guide the courts determination of the indicative starting point for
sentencing should be the seriousness of the hurt caused to the victim. As we
have already noted, s 325 encompasses a broad spectrum of different forms of
grievous hurt ranging from a simple fracture to death. We do not propose to set
out a range of indicative starting points for each type of grievous hurt, but what
is relevant for present purposes is that in a case where the grievous hurt takes
the form of death (as in the case of the first charge against the Respondent), the
indicative starting point should be a term of imprisonment of around eight years,
which is close to the maximum imprisonment term of ten years; whereas in a
case where the grievous hurt takes the form of multiple fractures of the type and
gravity described in the sixth charge against the Respondent, the indicative
starting point should be a term of imprisonment of around three years and six
months. For the avoidance of doubt, we wish to make it clear that the indicative
starting point might be higher or lower depending on the type and seriousness
of the injuries caused. These indicative starting points may then be calibrated
upwards or downwards in view of the relevant aggravating and/or mitigating
factors.
57 In determining the above indicative starting points, we have taken into

account the following considerations.
58 First, as we have noted, in general, because of the importance of the

degree of harm as a sentencing consideration in grievous hurt offences under
s 325 of the Penal Code, the indicative starting points should correspond to the
seriousness of the injury caused to the victims. This should be assessed along a
spectrum, having regard to considerations such as the nature and permanence of
the injury.
26
59 Second, the court should have regard to the full breadth of the permitted
sentencing range, and the indicative starting points should reflect this, while
allowing room for the sentencing judge to make adjustments based on the
offenders culpability and other relevant circumstances.
60 Third, we agree with Chan CJs holding in Firdaus that death is

generally the most serious consequence of any offence and may warrant the
imposition of the maximum sentence in appropriate cases. Where death results
from the infliction of severe physical violence on a young victim, this would
warrant a sentence close to the statutory maximum. This is also consistent with
the courts approach to fatal child abuse cases prosecuted under s 304(b) of the
Penal Code as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which carries a
similar maximum imprisonment term of ten years. In s 304(b) cases that involve
parents or caregivers causing the death of young children, the period of
imprisonment imposed by our courts has generally been close to, if not set at,
the maximum imprisonment term of ten years: see for instance, Public
Prosecutor v Mohd Ismail Bin Abdullah @ Nai Henry Criminal Case No 37 of
1994 and Public Prosecutor v Devadass s/o Suppaiyah Criminal Case No 41 of
1997, in both of which the maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment was
imposed; see also Teo Chee Seng and Public Prosecutor v Dwi Arti Samad
Criminal Case No 12 of 2000, where seven-year and eight-year imprisonment
terms were imposed respectively. In AFR, where the offenders 23-month-old
daughter died after the offender inflicted disturbing brutal violence on her,
the offenders imprisonment term for a s 304(b) charge was enhanced on appeal
from six years to the maximum ten years, along with ten strokes of the cane.
61 The sentencing framework which we set out here is not meant to be

rigidly applied, and, as noted at [41] above, each case must be assessed based
on its own particular facts. The indicative starting points should be adjusted
27
according to the facts of the particular case before the sentencing judge. This
would allow sentencing judges to better calibrate sentences according to the
circumstances of each case.
Adjusting for the offenders culpability aggravating circumstances
62 As mentioned at [55(b)] above, the indicative starting point arrived at by

the sentencing judge should be adjusted either upwards or downwards based on
the judges assessment of the offenders culpability, which entails a holistic
assessment of the relevant aggravating and/or mitigating factors. We set out
below some of the aggravating factors that would generally be relevant in this
context:
(a) the extent of deliberation or premeditation;
(b) the manner and duration of the attack;
(c) the victims vulnerability;
(d) the use of any weapon;
(e) whether the attack was undertaken by a group;
(f) any relevant antecedents on the offenders part; and
(g) any prior intervention by the authorities.
(1) Deliberation or premeditation
63 Where the facts of the case demonstrate a degree of deliberation or

premeditation, the offenders culpability would generally be increased. If a
weapon is used in the attack (see [67] below), the degree of premeditation
involved in procuring the weapon may also be relevant. In this regard, we note
28
that physical child abuse cases are often committed out of anger or annoyance.
The lack of premeditation in such situations may at most only amount to the
absence of an aggravating circumstance, and not the existence of a mitigating
circumstance.
(2) The manner and duration of the attack
64 The viciousness of the offenders actions may be inferred from the

circumstances of the attack, such as the frequency and recurrence of the attacks,
and the length of time over which the attacks are carried out. The focus here is
not on the direct consequences of the attack, namely, the injuries inflicted, since
that has already been properly taken into consideration at the first stage of the
sentencing process when determining the appropriate indicative starting point
(see [55(a)] above). Rather, the focus here is on the offenders culpability, and
this will entail an inquiry into whether there was cruelty in the manner of the
attack and whether the victims agony was exacerbated by the manner in which
the injuries were inflicted. For instance, in Firdaus, the offenders culpability
was assessed to be high considering that the offender had (among other things)
punched the three-year-old child in the face several times before grabbing him
by the mouth and slamming him into the wall. And even after that, the offender
did not stop, but instead continued to slap the child on his back.
(3) The victims vulnerability
65 The victims vulnerability is a seriously aggravating consideration. The

greater the advantage which the offender enjoys over the victim and exploits,
the greater his culpability. Such advantage need not only be physical, although
this will often be the case in the context of young victims. And such advantage
may be given additional aggravating weight where the victims vulnerability is
29
also rooted in the relationship of trust and dependence that exists between the
victim and the offender.
66 In UI, we noted (at [33]) that parents betray the ultimate relationship of
trust and authority when they abuse their children, and that for this reason, a
parent would typically receive a harsher punishment for such abuse (see [35]
above). In a similar vein, in AFR, we observed (at [15][16]) a difference in
sentencing between s 304(b) cases that involved parents causing the deaths of
young children under their care and s 304(b) cases that involved caregivers
doing the same. It was noted that the period of imprisonment imposed by our
courts for the latter category of cases was slightly shorter than that imposed
for the former category of cases, the maximum imprisonment sentence of ten
years being common to both categories of cases.
(4) The use of a weapon
67 The use of a weapon to inflict grievous hurt will increase the offenders
culpability. Where dangerous weapons are used, the offence may even be
prosecuted under the aggravated offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means under s 326 of the Penal Code, which carries a
higher maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment or even life imprisonment
and may also include a fine or caning. In addition, regard should be had to the
nature of the weapon and the way it was used, and how these aggravate the
offenders culpability.
(5) Group assault
68 Where the abuse takes place in a group setting with other co-offenders
involved, this will enhance the offenders culpability. This may be especially
pertinent in child abuse cases involving more than one caregiver, such as Zaidah
30
& Zaini, where a two-year-old childs mother and her boyfriend abused the child
on numerous occasions for more than a month on an almost daily basis. They
had done so both separately as well as together. In cases where two or more
offenders assault a defenceless child together, the sentence imposed on the
offenders should be adjusted upwards to reflect their higher culpability.
(6) The offenders antecedents
69 The presence of relevant antecedents on the offenders part is an

aggravating factor because it signals a greater need for specific deterrence: see
Tan Kay Beng v Public Prosecutor [2006] 4 SLR(R) 10 (Tan Kay Beng) at
[14]. In this regard, previous convictions for voluntarily causing grievous hurt
are not the only relevant antecedents. Where the offence involves a young
victim, antecedents relating to other types of offences against such victims
(which may range from ill-treatment offences under the CYPA to serious sexual
offences against minors) may also be considered to be relevant. In addition, it
is pertinent to consider the seriousness and the number of relevant antecedents.
(7) Prior intervention by the authorities
70 Lastly, we consider that the need for specific deterrence is also enhanced
when an offender continues to abuse a young victim despite prior intervention
by the CPS (as in the present case) or any other organisation that deals with
child protection concerns.
Mitigating factors
71 We now outline the typical mitigating factors that are raised by offenders
in cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code. These include:
(a) the offenders mental condition;
31
(b) the offenders genuine remorse; and
(c) the offenders personal financial or social problems.
(1) The offenders mental condition
72 Mitigating value may be attributed to an offenders mental condition in

certain situations. The first issue in this context is whether the nature of the
mental condition is such that the offender retains substantially the mental ability
or capacity to control or restrain himself (see Public Prosecutor v Chong Hou
En [2015] 3 SLR 222 (Chong Hou En) at [28] and Ang Zhu Ci Joshua v Public
Prosecutor [2016] 4 SLR 1059 at [3]). Hence, medical evidence to establish a
causal connection between the mental condition and the commission of the
offence will be important in persuading the court to give a diagnosis of a mental
disorder significant mitigating value. The focus of the inquiry will be on
whether the evidence establishes that the offenders mental responsibility for
his criminal acts was substantially diminished at the time of the offence by
reason of his mental condition. The sentencing principle of general deterrence
may be accorded full weight in circumstances where the offenders mental
condition is not serious or is not causally related to the commission of the
offence and the offence is a serious one (see Chong Hou En at [24(c)] and
Vasentha d/o Joseph v Public Prosecutor [2015] 5 SLR 122 (Vasentha) at
[74]).
73 By way of illustration, in Firdaus, Chan CJ reasoned (at [22]) that the

offence in Public Prosecutor v Rosnani bte Ismail District Arrest Case
No 19936 of 2000 (Rosnani) was less serious than the offences before him in
Firdaus because the offender in Rosnani was mentally retarded and this
mitigated her offence.
32
(2) The offenders genuine remorse
74 We have also generally considered that circumstances demonstrating the

offenders genuine remorse may be accorded mitigating weight. This may be
relevant in situations where a timely admission of guilt or cooperation with the
authorities in their investigations reflects genuine remorse. However, an
offenders plea of guilt should be given little weight if the evidence against him
is strong and he has little choice but to plead guilty: see Vasentha at [71].
Similarly, the offenders cooperation with the investigating authorities should
not be regarded as a strong mitigating factor if there is overwhelming evidence
against him: see Chia Kah Boon v Public Prosecutor [1999] 2 SLR(R) 1163 at
[12] and Vasentha at [73].
(3) The offenders personal financial or social problems
75 An often-cited factor raised by offenders relates to the difficult personal

circumstances that they faced at the time of the offences. This will rarely, if
ever, have mitigating value: see Lai Oei Mui Jenny v Public Prosecutor [1993]
2 SLR(R) 406 at [10] (in the context of the offence of giving false information
to a public servant) and Public Prosecutor v Osi Maria Elenora Protacio [2016]
SGHC 78 at [8] (in the context of the offence of criminal breach of trust). In the
context of offences against young victims (as well as other vulnerable victims),
this proposition applies with even greater force because the frustrations faced
by a parent or caregiver due to his or her difficult personal circumstances can
never justify or excuse the abuse of such victims. As we emphasised in AFR at
[12]:
Any parent or caregiver who [inflicts violence on young

children under his charge] will not be allowed to mitigate his
culpability on the ground of financial or social problems, nor will
he be allowed (for mitigation purposes) to exclaim with regret
that he did not mean to inflict violence on the victim in question,
whom he professes to love. [emphasis added]
33
Caning for cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code
76 In cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code, our courts have
invariably imposed, in addition to imprisonment sentences, caning of at least
six strokes where the offender in question is not exempted from caning under
the CPC. As the authors of Sentencing Practice have noted (at p 266), caning
is also appropriate unless there are exceptional circumstances. Where
violence has been inflicted on a victim, retribution is likely to be the principal
sentencing consideration that warrants the imposition of caning: see Sentencing
Principles in Singapore at paras 6.021 and 30.023, as well as Amin Bin Abdullah
v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 215 (Amin) at [63]. In our judgment, where
death is caused, a sentence of 12 or more strokes of the cane may be warranted;
whereas where non-fatal serious injury is caused, a sentence of between six and
12 strokes of the cane may be considered.
Ill-treatment of young victims prosecuted under s 5 of the CYPA
77 We now consider the relevant sentencing considerations for the CYPA

charges against the Respondent before turning to apply these principles to the
present appeal. Section 5 of the CYPA provides as follows:
Ill-treatment of child or young person

5.(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, being a person
who has the custody, charge or care of a child or young person,
he ill-treats the child or young person or causes, procures or
knowingly permits the child or young person to be ill-treated by
any other person.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person ill-treats a child
or young person if that person, being a person who has the
custody, charge or care of the child or young person
(a) subjects the child or young person to physical or
sexual abuse;
(b) wilfully or unreasonably does, or causes the child or
young person to do, any act which endangers or is likely
34
to endanger the safety of the child or young person or

which causes or is likely to cause the child or young
person
(i) any unnecessary physical pain, suffering or
injury;
(ii) any emotional injury; or
(iii) any injury to his health or development; or
(c) wilfully or unreasonably neglects, abandons or
exposes the child or young person with full intention of
abandoning the child or young person or in
circumstances that are likely to endanger the safety of
the child or young person or to cause the child or young
person
(i) any unnecessary physical pain, suffering or
injury;
(ii) any emotional injury; or
(iii) any injury to his health or development.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(c), the parent or
guardian of a child or young person shall be deemed to have
neglected the child or young person in a manner likely to cause
him physical pain, suffering or injury or emotional injury or
injury to his health or development if the parent or guardian
wilfully or unreasonably neglects to provide adequate food,
clothing, medical aid, lodging, care or other necessities of life
for the child or young person.
(4) A person may be convicted of an offence under this
section notwithstanding
(a) that any actual suffering or injury on the part of the
child or young person or the likelihood of any suffering
or injury on the part of the child or young person was
obviated by the action of another person; or
(b) the death of the child or young person in respect of
whom the offence is committed.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), any person who is guilty of an
offence under this section shall be liable on conviction
(a) in the case where death is caused to the child or
young person, to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to
both; and
35
(b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or

to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or to
both.

78 The earliest predecessor of the CYPA, the Children and Young Persons
Ordinance 1949 (No 18 of 1949), was enacted in 1949 to provide for the rescue,
care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons. Currently, s 5
of the CYPA, titled Ill-treatment of child or young person, is located in Part II
of the CYPA, which deals with the welfare and protection of children and young
persons. Section 5 came into effect in 2001 and replaced the former s 4 of the
Children and Young Persons Act (Cap 38, 1994 Rev Ed) (the 1994 CYPA);
for present purposes, the two provisions are essentially the same.
79 Section 5 is an all-encompassing section targeted at all forms of ill-

treatment of children and young persons. It covers the entire spectrum of child
abuse ranging from neglect or emotional abuse to physical and sexual abuse,
with the relevant harm ranging from physical or emotional injury to injury to
the childs health or development. Although emotional injury is not defined
in the CYPA, s 4(g), which furnishes an example of when a child or young
person is in need of care or protection from such injury, sheds some light:
When child or young person in need of care or protection

4. For the purposes of this Act, a child or young person is
in need of care or protection if

(g) there is such a serious and persistent conflict
between the child or young person and his parent or
guardian, or between his parents or guardians, that
family relationships are seriously disrupted, thereby
causing the child or young person emotional injury;

36
80 Under s 2(1) of the CYPA, a child is defined as a person under the age
of 14 years, and a young person, as a person who is between the ages of 14
and 16 years. Section 5(2) defines ill-treatment, while s 5(3) expands on what
neglect means. From the plain words of the provision, the operative mischief
targeted by s 5 of the CYPA is physical or sexual abuse (s 5(2)(a)) and wilful or
unreasonable harm to or neglect of young victims (ss 5(2)(b) and 5(2)(c)
respectively).
81 The 1994 CYPA incorporated enhanced penalties for child abuse and
neglect. Before the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 (Act 1 of 1993)
repealed and re-enacted (with amendments) the Children and Young Persons
Act (Cap 38, 1985 Rev Ed) (the 1985 CYPA), s 5 of the 1985 CYPA
prescribed lower penalties for what was then termed Cruelty to children and
young persons. At the second reading of the Children and Young Persons Bill
(Bill 38 of 1992), the then Minister for Community Development, Mr Yeo
Cheow Tong, explained why the penalties were to be increased (see Singapore
Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (18 January 1993) vol 60 at cols 449
450):
The Children and Young Persons Bill , while retaining most

of the provisions of the existing CYP Act [ie, the 1985 CYPA],
will incorporate several major changes to give the State wider
powers to protect children at risk and to make the Act more
relevant to present day needs. Penalties are also being increased
to a more appropriate level.

First, increased penalties. Mr Speaker, Sir, the quantum of
fines and penalties has not been changed since the Act was
enacted in 1949. For example, any person who causes a child
to beg is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $250 or to
imprisonment of three months, or to both. The penalties for
offences against children in the existing CYP Act are now too
low to be a deterrent. Under the Bill, penalties for offences have
been greatly enhanced, especially for offences like child abuse
37
and exploitation and contribution to the delinquency of children

and young persons.

[W]hat is worrying are the instances where child abuse has
resulted in the death of the abused child. Between 1985 and
1988, there was an average of one death from child abuse each
year. This increased to an average of two deaths a year for the
past three years.
The present penalty for both fatal and non-fatal cases of child
abuse is a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding two years, or both.
These penalties are manifestly inadequate. The Bill proposes to
enhance the penalties to strongly discourage such abuses of
defenceless children. In fatal cases, the Bill will increase the
penalty to a fine not exceeding $20,000 or imprisonment for
a term not exceeding seven years, or both. In non-fatal cases,
the penalty will now be a fine not exceeding $4,000 or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, or both.
[emphasis added]
82 At the same Parliamentary session, several other Members of Parliament

endorsed this proposed amendment. The then Deputy Speaker, Mr Abdullah
Tarmugi, stated (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report
(18 January 1993) vol 60 at cols 452453):
[W]e should continue to find ways to diminish further, if not

altogether eliminate, acts of abuse of children and young
persons in our society. Therefore, this Bill is welcomed.
I am particularly glad to note that penalties for offences against
children have been enhanced so that they may act as
deterrence. The quantum of fine, for example, has been
increased and so have been the jail terms. The quantum of fines
has not changed since the Act was enacted in 1949, as
mentioned earlier. What was a deterrent sum then is a
painless sum to be of any deterrence now. This is especially so
for abuses which lead to the death of children. While such
penalties may not be the best way of stopping child abuse, it is
nevertheless an effective one in most cases.
[emphasis added]
38
83 Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon also alluded to the principle of general

deterrence as the main consideration behind the proposed increased penalties
(see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (18 January 1993)
vol 60 at col 454):
The new provisions will help deter potential child abusers. They
will help to protect our children from people who exploit or are
cruel to them in any way. The passage of this Bill will send a
strong message to these people that such barbaric behaviour
will be met with fitting punishments.
84 In these Parliamentary statements, the clear abhorrence of child abuse is

evident, as is the importance of imposing harsh sentences to deter potential child
abusers, especially where the abuse leads to the death of a child or young person.
This forms the background to the distinction that is now drawn in s 5(5) of the
CYPA in the range of permissible sentences for fatal and non-fatal child abuse
cases, as well as the increase in the maximum imprisonment sentence from the
original maximum of two years imprisonment under s 5 of the 1985 CYPA.
85 It follows that the sentencing considerations of deterrence and

retribution are just as relevant in the context of child abuse offences prosecuted
under s 5 of the CYPA as in those prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code.
We also consider that factors similar to those outlined at [63][75] above would
be relevant in deriving the appropriate sentence on the facts of each case.
86 For non-fatal child abuse cases, the offender is liable under s 5(5)(b) of
the CYPA to a fine not exceeding $4,000, or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding four years, or both. We observe that in the relevant precedents cited
by the parties that involved physical violence to children or young persons, the
courts invariably imposed a term of imprisonment of at least six months for
offences prosecuted under s 5 of the CYPA. We also note that in general,
offenders who wilfully inflict injury on a child or young person may be regarded
39
as being more culpable than offenders who act unreasonably in doing so, and
should therefore receive harsher sentences than the latter category of offenders:
see Public Prosecutor v Kusrini Bt Caslan Arja [2017] SGHC 94 at [7], where
Tay Yong Kwang JA opined that the case before him, which involved three
unreasonable acts of ill-treatment of a child, was not as grave as cases where
pain and suffering were wilfully inflicted on a child.
87 In that light, we turn to our decision in the present appeal.
Our decision
Our reasons for disagreeing with the Judges sentences
Both general and specific deterrence were relevant in this case
88 We disagreed with the sentences imposed by the Judge for several

reasons. First, we were satisfied that the Judge erred in finding that the
sentencing objective of deterrence was not relevant in this case. In our
judgment, both general and specific deterrence were relevant sentencing
considerations.
89 Deterrence, as a general sentencing principle, aims to signal to and

create an awareness in the public and among potential offenders that a particular
type of offending behaviour will not be condoned, and that punishment for such
behaviour will be certain and unrelenting: see Tan Kay Beng at [31]. There are
two aspects to deterrence: deterrence of the offender and deterrence of likely
offenders, corresponding to specific and general deterrence respectively: see
Public Prosecutor v Tan Fook Sum [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1022 at [18].
90 In the court below, the Judge accepted that retribution was a relevant
sentencing principle, but did not accept that deterrence was a sentencing
40
principle which could feature significantly in the present case because the
Respondent had committed the offences out of anger and on the spur of the
moment (see the GD at [25][27]; see also [27] above). He was of the view that
where the court was dealing with crimes of passion, it might often be
inappropriate to invoke deterrence as a sentencing consideration given that a
person who was acting on the passion of the moment might not be susceptible
to deterrence by considering the consequences that were likely to ensue.
However, the Judge also accepted (at [26] of the GD) that it was
uncontroversial that offences against vulnerable victims normally warrant
general deterrence. We therefore understand his comments on the
inapplicability of the principle of deterrence as being directed at specific
deterrence.
91 There are three reasons, in our judgment, why the Judge erred in
concluding that specific deterrence was not relevant in this case.
92 First, we disagree with the Judges view that the Respondents offences
were crimes of passion that were committed on the spur of the moment. We
elaborate on this below at [109][114].
93 Second, even if the circumstances of this case did render the

Respondents offences crimes of passion, the mere fact that an offence is
committed out of anger does not in itself suggest that there is no room for
considering the applicability of deterrence as a sentencing objective. Our
jurisprudence, as rightly pointed out by the Prosecution, in fact goes the other
way in viewing certain crimes committed out of anger as warranting general
deterrence. Such a policy can be seen in the context of road rage cases, where
the court is mindful of the need to deter people from resorting to violence on the
roads on the slightest provocation (see Public Prosecutor v Lee Seck Hing
41
[1992] 2 SLR(R) 374 at [11][12]), as well as in the context of cases involving

the abuse of domestic workers (see ADF v Public Prosecutor and another
appeal [2010] 1 SLR 874 at [58][59]).
94 Third, the fact that an offence is committed out of anger does not mean
that the offender was not able to make rational decisions at the material time.
The law expects a person to be in control of his emotions and conduct even in
moments of grave anger, and to face the consequences of failing to do so.
Deterrence is concerned with making it clear what those consequences are likely
to be even if the proscribed act is done in a moment of anger.
95 The principle of deterrence treats offenders and potential offenders as

rational actors who are capable of acting prudently, and who are therefore likely
to see the threat of punishment as a reason for not breaking the law: see Public
Prosecutor v Loqmanul Hakim bin Buang [2007] 4 SLR(R) 753 at [26]. In Law
Aik Meng, it was noted (at [22]) that deterrence might not be as effective in
certain situations where the offender was thought to be undeterrable:
[D]eterrence probably works best where there is a conscious

choice to commit crimes. Nigel Walker and Nicola Padfield in
Sentencing: Theory, Law and Practice (Butterworths, 2nd Ed,
1996) at p 99 explain the theory of undeterribility.
Pathologically weak self-control, addictions, mental
illnesses and compulsions are some of the elements that, if
possessed by an offender, may constitute undeterribility, thus
rendering deterrence futile. Such elements seem to involve
some form of impulse or inability to make proper choices on the
part of the offender [emphasis in original in italics; emphasis
added in bold italics]
96 Drawing an analogy with when a mental condition would give rise to

undeterribility, the High Court in Chong Hou En at [28] and Chan Chun Hong
v Public Prosecutor [2016] 3 SLR 465 at [73] held that an offender should be
deemed to be capable of being deterred by punishment and should therefore face
42
the consequences imposed by the law as long as it could be shown that the
offenders ability to appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions and
to stop himself from committing the criminal act had not been substantially
impaired. This is an important point because it requires the court to go behind
assertions of temper and rage and analyse: (a) whether there is in fact expert
evidence to establish an inability on the part of the offender to make the
appropriate choices; and also (b) whether, on the facts of the case, the offender
was labouring under such an inability at the material time.
97 There is a further point which was noted in Mohammed Ali bin Johari v
Public Prosecutor [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 at [114], where we affirmed the
following observations of Prof A J Ashworth in The Doctrine of Provocation
[1976] CLJ 292 at p 319:
It is also arguable that no one should be provoked into a violent

rage by a young child, and that the defence of provocation
should not be available to a person who uses serious violence
and kills in such circumstances.
98 In our judgment, it would generally be untenable to contend that

deterrence as a sentencing consideration has been displaced where an offence is
committed out of anger, absent clear evidence that the offender was unable to
stop himself from committing the act in question. Indeed, as we emphasised in
AFR at [41], anger should not be accepted as a mitigating factor in child abuse
cases. Thus, leaving aside the possible relevance of the Respondents
personality aberrations, we are satisfied that both general and specific
deterrence, in addition to retribution, should feature prominently as sentencing
considerations in this case.
43
The Judge placed undue weight on the alleged mitigating factors
99 Another reason why we disagreed with the sentences imposed by the

Judge was that in our view, the Judge placed undue weight on certain alleged
mitigating factors which were either irrelevant or not in fact made out. Relying
on the Respondents personality aberrations coupled with various other stress
factors, the Judge concluded that the offences in this case were committed on
the spur of the moment and that the Respondents culpability was therefore
reduced. For the reasons that follow, we agreed with the Prosecution that the
Judge placed undue weight on these alleged mitigating factors.
(1) The Respondents personality aberrations should not have been treated
as a mitigating factor
100 Dealing first with the relevance of the Respondents personality

aberrations (as set out at [22] above), we considered that the Judge erred in
regarding these personality aberrations as having mitigating value.
101 In the proceedings below, after the Respondent pleaded guilty, a Newton
hearing was conducted to address the specific issue of whether the Respondent
was suffering from a mental disorder that caused her to injure her own child as
she did. The Prosecutions position was that the Respondent only had
personality aberrations which did not affect her ability or capacity to control
herself. Citing Dr Guptas evidence, the Prosecution submitted that these
personality aberrations were personality traits rather than symptoms or signs of
Aspergers Syndrome or any other mental or personality disorder.
102 As we mentioned earlier at [28] above, the Judge found that the
Respondent was not suffering from any recognised mental disorder at the time
of the offences, but he nonetheless drew a causal link between her personality
44
aberrations and her offending conduct (see the GD at [35]). In this regard, he
relied on the last paragraph of Dr Guptas report dated 2 September 2014 (see
[22] above), which expressed the opinion that the Respondent had:
several personality aberrations (recurrent suspicions

regarding [the] sexual fidelity of [her] spouse/partner, tendency
to act impulsively, very low tolerance [for] frustration, a low
threshold for discharge of aggression, and marked proneness to
blame others) which do not amount to a recognisable mental
disorder but make her more likely than others to cope
maladaptively (such as by using aggression in interpersonal
relationships) when experiencing stressful situations.
103 In our judgment, and with respect, the Judge erred in his appreciation of
the proper context of Dr Guptas expert opinion. We reiterate that it was
common ground that the Respondents various personality aberrations as
identified in Dr Guptas report did not amount to an established mental
disorder. When Dr Gupta was asked by defence counsel what caused these
personality aberrations, he answered that it was not possible to say. Dr Tans
evidence was similarly inconclusive as to the causes of these personality
aberrations. In the circumstances, it was impossible to conclude, without more,
that these personality traits should reduce the Respondents culpability.
Individuals react differently when faced with stress factors. To treat as a
mitigating circumstance an offenders tendency to be aggressive and/or to be
prone to blame others when facing stressful situations even though this does not
amount to any recognisable mental disorder and did not substantially impair the
offenders mental responsibility for his conduct at the material time would seem
to reward appallingly bad social behaviour. The mitigating value of a
psychiatric condition depends on, among other factors, the existence of a causal
connection between that condition and the commission of the offence (see
Chong Hou En at [28]). In the present case, the Respondent simply had no
mental disorder, and the mere fact that she was aggressive and yielded to that
aggression does not mean that she lost control of her impulses when she
45
committed the offences or that her aggressive personality should in some way
be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
104 It is not illogical to draw a causal link between an offenders personality

trait of readily resorting to aggression in stressful situations and the offenders
criminal conduct in giving vent to his aggression and using violence. However,
to accord mitigating value to such a personality trait is erroneous. To put it
another way, the Respondents aggressive personality might help to explain
what she did when she committed the offences, but it in no way excuses or even
reduces her culpability for abusing and ill-treating A.
105 In this regard, we find the case of R v Murukaiyan Rasoo [1957] 1 MLJ
26 (Murukaiyan Rasoo) illustrative of the approach which a sentencing court
should take towards an offenders alleged personality traits. In that case, which
involved a charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the trial judge had
imposed what the appellate court described as a very light sentence namely,
binding over for one year in the sum of $500 on the offender for his knife
attack on his ex-fiance. The trial judge decided on this sentence after taking
into account the personality of the accused and the fact that he was highly
sensitive and emotional. On appeal by the Prosecution against the sentence, the
offenders counsel submitted that the sentence should not be enhanced because
the offender suffered from some temperamental defect. Whitton J rejected
this argument, noting that there was no suggestion that the offender suffered
from a mental disorder, and that the medical expert had merely testified that the
offender was emotionally immature. Whitton J thus allowed the Prosecutions
appeal and enhanced the sentence to six months imprisonment.
106 The situation in the recent decision of Chong Yee Ka v Public

Prosecutor [2017] 4 SLR 309 (Chong Yee Ka) was converse to that in
46
Murukaiyan Rasoo. In Chong Yee Ka, See Kee Oon J departed from the
sentencing precedents (at [86]) and imposed a fine instead of a custodial
sentence in respect of three charges of voluntarily causing hurt. He did so in the
light of a diagnosis of psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity as to
significantly diminish the offenders culpability (at [86]). See J rightly pointed
out (at [80] and [82]) that it would not be practicable to specify precisely how
substantial the impairment of an offenders mental state would have to be in
order to warrant consideration as a mitigating factor because each case should
be carefully considered within its factual matrix. However, he helpfully framed
the inquiry as whether the disorder(s) in question can be said to have
contributed so significantly to the offending conduct that it diminishes the
offenders capacity to exercise self-control and restraint, and hence reduces her
culpability in the circumstances (at [82]).
107 In Chong Yee Ka, it was undisputed that the offender had been suffering
from postnatal depression linked to caregiver stress and multiple family-related
stress factors. See J thus accepted (at [74]) that the offenders difficult personal
circumstances rendered her more prone to impulsive, unpredictable and
irrational acts including those involving violence to the victim as well as acts
of self-harm. Unlike the present case, both the Prosecutions and the Defences
experts in Chong Yee Ka had diagnosed the offender as having depression of
moderate severity. In the circumstances, See J found (at [64]) that the offenders
psychiatric condition would have caused her to have difficulties controlling
her emotions and impulses and would have contributed to her loss of self-
control that led to the commission of the offences [emphasis added]. It may be
noted that the offender in that case, apart from pleading guilty and
demonstrating her remorse, had sought treatment for her condition, taking
cognisance of her wrongdoing.
47
108 For these reasons, we were satisfied that the Judge erred in taking into
account the Respondents personality aberrations as a mitigating factor.
(2) The Respondents offences were not crimes of passion
109 We turn now to the Judges characterisation of the Respondents

offences as crimes of passion which, in his view, should be given mitigating
weight. We did not agree. We touched on this earlier at [91][96] above in
considering whether it is legitimate to disregard deterrence as a sentencing
consideration when an offence is committed out of anger. Here, we consider
whether there was any ground to view the Respondents offences as crimes of
passion and, on that basis, accord mitigating value to this factor. In our
judgment, while there might well have been no premeditation involved in the
present case, taking that at its highest, it would only mean the absence of an
aggravating circumstance and not the existence of a mitigating circumstance
(see [63] above). On the evidence, the assaults which formed the subject matter
of the charges against the Respondent were not the actions of a person who had
lost her senses. Instead, the Respondents attacks on A were responses to
specific acts of A, and were cruel and vindictive.
110 With regard to the third charge, the Respondent admitted pushing A,
causing him to fall backwards and hit the back of his head against a television
console. She had evidently done so because she was frustrated that A failed to
recite certain numbers that she had asked him to (see [13] above). There was no
evidence to suggest that she had lost her senses to the extent of being in a state
of hot-blooded irrationality on account of As failure to recite those numbers.
111 As to the fourth charge, the Respondent admitted kicking A in the waist
area after he had moved his bowels on the floor. This assault was not even an
immediate reaction. It was only after A had cleaned himself up and gone to the
48
Respondent that she kicked him. After A fell due to her kick, the Respondent
then stepped on his stomach with both feet for a few seconds before moving
away (see [14] above). These actions could not be said to be acts of passion;
they were simply acts of vindictiveness.
112 In respect of the sixth charge, the Respondent, irritated by As inability

to follow her instructions as she attempted to teach him the alphabet, pushed
him. When A failed to comply with her further instructions, she pushed him a
second time, causing him to fall, and also stepped on his ribs. A then asked if
he could draw, so the Respondent gave him some paper. But A scribbled on the
sofa instead. In anger, the Respondent proceeded to twist and pull his hand very
hard. This series of actions did not suggest that the Respondent had committed
these acts (or any of them) on the spur of the moment. On the contrary, the
Respondents actions were deliberate responses to particular actions by A.
There was nothing to suggest that she had lost control.
113 Similarly, in relation to the assaults on 1 August 2014 which resulted in

As death (the subject matter of the first charge), four episodes of abuse were
carried out intermittently over about two hours from approximately 4.30pm to
6.30pm. The Respondent had ample time to cool down during this period even
if she had been extremely angry with A. This included the period when she
simply ignored A for a time and when she went to take a shower in between the
episodes. The Respondent even had the presence of mind to remember to pick
her daughter up, and had asked A if he wanted to accompany her or stay at home
(see [18] above). In our judgment, and with respect, the Judge failed to give
appropriate consideration to the entire sequence of events and thus erred in
holding that the Respondents assaults on A on 1 August 2014 were committed
on the spur of the moment.
49
114 It is also pertinent that the Respondent told Dr Gupta that she had
committed the assaults to discipline A. This intention to discipline A is
borne out in a note that the Respondent wrote to her then boyfriend on 2 July
2014, approximately a month before the last instances of abuse on 30 July and
1 August 2014. In that note, the Respondent said that she taught A his
homework and discipline [sic] him. Having regard to the nature, timing and
frequency of the Respondents violent attacks on A, we reject any suggestion
that these assaults were not deliberate. They were certainly not spontaneous and
irrational reactions by the Respondent in a moment of a total loss of control.
(3) The Respondents alleged inability to cope with her problems was not
an excuse
115 Finally, we are not persuaded that the Respondents alleged inability to
cope due to her financial and social problems could be viewed as a mitigating
factor. As we have observed above (at [75]), the frustrations faced by a parent
or caregiver due to difficult personal circumstances can never justify or excuse
the abuse of young victims.
116 In the circumstances, we disagreed with the Judges view that there were
relevant mitigating factors in the present case.
The Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the relevant aggravating factors
117 In fact, we considered that the gravity of the Respondents offences (and
hence, her culpability) was aggravated by several factors that, in our respectful
view, the Judge did not accord sufficient weight to.
118 First, there was the extreme youth of A. At the time the offences were
committed, A was between two and four years of age. Although the Judge
appeared to recognise the young age of A as an aggravating factor (see the GD
50
at [24]), he reasoned that to the extent that this factor already presented itself in
the precedent cases, it did not warrant an increase in the sentences imposed in
those cases (see [26] above). We note, however, that the victims in the
precedents cited to the Judge were of varying ages ranging from two to 12 years.
In general, the younger the victim, the more defenceless he or she would be (see,
in this regard, [37] and [65] above). Here, the extreme youth of A was a
seriously aggravating factor, but it was not adequately appreciated by the Judge.
119 Second, the Respondent, as the biological mother of A, had a particular

duty to protect him. The betrayal of this critical relationship of trust and
dependence was a separate and seriously aggravating factor. As we stated in UI
at [33] (see [35] above), a parent who betrays that relationship and harms his or
her child will generally stand at the furthest end of the spectrum of guilt
[emphasis in original]. The Judge, however, appeared to have overlooked this.
120 Third, the Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that the
Respondents pattern of conduct as a whole pointed to cruelty towards a
defenceless child. The degree and the duration of the violence inflicted on A
were important in assessing the Respondents culpability (see [64] above). We
have already pointed out that a high degree of violence and force was directed
by the Respondent against A. On several occasions, A was already on the floor
after being hit or pushed by the Respondent when she then proceeded to step on
his knees, ribs or stomach. The extent of the force that she used was also clear.
On the evening of the day when the fatal assaults took place, the Respondent
choked A with her right hand and lifted him off the ground against the wall. She
also pushed A on the chest on several occasions with such force that he fell and
hit his head either on the ground (see the first and sixth charges) or against a
television console table (see the third charge). In addition, in the assault in
March 2012 (the subject matter of the sixth charge), the Respondent twisted and
51
pulled As hand so hard that, among other things, his left elbow was fractured.
Apart from the viciousness of the violence inflicted on A, the abuse in 2014 was
protracted and occurred over a sustained period from June until 1 August 2014.
121 Not only did the Respondents heinous and violent conduct cause the
death of a helpless child, the post-mortem examination of A revealed, in
addition to the fatal head injury (arising from six discrete impact sites on the
head), 43 other external injuries to A. Four of them were old scars on his
forehead, chin, head and neck. The rest were recent injuries consisting of
abrasions and bruises all over As body on his forehead, chin, jaw, scalp, ears,
neck, shoulder, chest, back, arms, hands, knees and left foot. Five areas of
internal haemorrhage were also found in his tissues. The pain suffered by A
must have been unspeakably severe. The extreme degree of violence and force
that the Respondent inflicted on her defenceless son did not appear to have been
given sufficient consideration by the Judge: nothing was said in the GD about
the viciousness of the Respondents acts of abuse or the severity of the injuries
suffered by A.
122 Lastly, the prior intervention of the CPS in between the episodes of
abuse in March 2012 and 2014 was also an aggravating factor (see [70] above).
The Respondent had previously been investigated for inflicting non-accidental
injuries on A, and it was barely a few months after As case was closed by the
CPS on 5 February 2014 (see [11] above) that the Respondent started to ill-treat
A again in June 2014. Yet, the Judge did not seem to have regarded this as an
aggravating factor at all.
The sentences for the s 325 charges enhanced
123 Having considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in the
present case, we turn now to the appropriate sentences for the various charges
52
against the Respondent. We first deal with the two charges under s 325 of the
Penal Code, the first and sixth charges.
The first charge
124 For the first charge, given that the grievous hurt caused took the form of
death, we were satisfied that the appropriate imprisonment sentence should be
at the high end of the prescribed range. Based on the guidelines which we set
out earlier (at [56] above), the indicative starting point is a sentence of around
eight years imprisonment. In our view, this should be adjusted upwards to nine
years imprisonment in this case, taking into account the Respondents high
degree of culpability as well as the various aggravating factors that we identified
at [118][122] above. In particular, we took into account: (a) the Respondents
position as the mother of A; (b) the extreme youth of A; (c) the viciousness of
the violence inflicted; and (d) the extended period of time over which the events
on 1 August 2014 unfolded.
125 Further, in calibrating the appropriate sentence, we considered it

relevant to have regard to the fact that the Respondent would not be caned by
virtue of s 325(1)(a) of the CPC. The Prosecution had highlighted in the court
below that imprisonment coupled with between six and 12 strokes of the cane
had previously been imposed in grievous hurt cases where the victim either died
or suffered very serious injuries. Although the Prosecution sought an
enhancement of the Respondents imprisonment sentence in lieu of caning, the
Judge did not address this.
126 As the Respondent was exempted from caning, the Judge was
empowered to enhance her sentence by up to a maximum of 12 months
imprisonment under s 325(2) of the CPC. In Amin, a three-judge panel of the
High Court set out the approach to be taken by a court when determining
53
whether an offenders sentence should be enhanced by reason of the offenders

exemption from caning, and if so, how the extent of such enhancement should
be determined.
127 In the present case, we considered that there were grounds for such
enhancement. As a woman, the Respondent would have known that she fell into
one of the categories of offenders exempted from caning. Moreover, we
considered that the sentencing principles of both deterrence and retribution
featured significantly in this case as it involved grave violence against a young
victim who died from the injuries inflicted. In the circumstances, we were
satisfied that an additional term of imprisonment was called for to compensate
for the lost deterrent effect of caning (see Amin at [67]).
128 Earlier, we stated that in fatal cases prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal
Code, a sentence of 12 or more strokes of the cane may be warranted (see [76]
above). In the light of the substantial aggravating factors which featured in this
case and which we have already recounted (such as the extreme youth of A, the
fact that the Respondent was his biological mother and the Respondents vicious
cruelty towards a defenceless child), we would have imposed 14 strokes of the
cane on the Respondent if she had not been exempted from caning under
s 325(1)(a) of the CPC. Based on the indicative guidelines provided in Amin (at
[90]), an additional term of imprisonment of between six and nine months was
called for. In the circumstances, we were of the view that an enhancement of
the Respondents imprisonment sentence for the first charge by six months was
warranted. We therefore increased the imprisonment sentence for this charge
from seven years to nine years and six months.
54
The sixth charge
129 As for the sixth charge, we increased the sentence from two years
imprisonment to four years imprisonment. We earlier stated that the indicative
starting point for offences prosecuted under s 325 of the Penal Code involving
non-fatal serious injuries and multiple fractures of the type and gravity
encountered in this case is an imprisonment term of around three years and six
months (see [56] above). We were of the view that this should be adjusted
upwards in the Respondents case to four years imprisonment given the
aggravating factors present.
130 In relation to the sixth charge, the violence inflicted on A, who was
merely two years and five months old then, was, as we stated at [112] above,
unjustified and vicious. As injuries after this first reported instance of abuse in
2012 were serious: he was found to have multiple fractures (on his left elbow,
left calf and right eighth to eleventh ribs), haematomas on his forehead and the
back of his head, various small healing bruises on various parts of his body, as
well as other healed linear scars on his lower legs and lower abdomen (see [9]
above). Further, the especially young age of A at that time was a relevant
consideration.
The sentences for the CYPA charges left undisturbed
131 We turn to the third and fourth charges for ill-treating A, which were
brought under s 5(1) of the CYPA and punishable under s 5(5)(b) of that Act.
132 We decided not to disturb the sentences imposed for these two charges
because, in our judgment, the agreed Statement of Facts did not allow us to draw
any conclusion as to the precise nature and seriousness of the injuries that were
inflicted on A in relation to these charges. There were no accompanying medical
55
reports or details of these injuries. As we pointed out earlier, the sentence

imposed must be sensitive to the facts of the case and should reflect a proper
appreciation of all the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the
harm caused and the seriousness and permanence of the injuries inflicted. In the
absence of detailed information on these matters, we decided that the sentences
imposed by the Judge for the third and fourth charges should not be disturbed.
The aggregate sentence
133 With regard to the aggregate sentence, we were satisfied that in the
present circumstances, the Prosecution was correct to urge us to order the
sentences for the first, fourth and sixth charges to run consecutively so as to
make an aggregate sentence of 14 years and six months imprisonment.
134 Ordering the sentences for these three charges to run consecutively
would be in line with the one-transaction rule and the totality principle (see
Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 998
(Shouffee) at [25]). Where the one-transaction rule is concerned, these three
charges involved distinct offences. The acts of abuse which formed the subject
matter of these charges were committed on different days, with the first and
sixth offences committed almost two and a half years apart, and the CPS was
involved in the intervening period.
135 As for the totality principle, the first limb of this principle examines
whether the aggregate sentence is substantially above the normal level of
sentences for the most serious of the individual offences committed [emphasis
in original]: see Shouffee at [54], citing Prof D A Thomas, Principles of
Sentencing (Heinemann, 2nd Ed, 1979) at pp 5758. In Haliffie bin Mamat v
Public Prosecutor and other appeals [2016] 5 SLR 636, we clarified (at [79])
that in determining the normal level of sentences for this purpose, the court
56
should look at the range of sentences normally imposed for the most serious of
the individual offences rather than a specific sentencing benchmark or starting
point. With regard to the second limb of the totality principle, this assesses
whether the effect of the aggregate sentence is crushing and not in keeping
with [the offenders] past record and future prospects (see Shouffee at [57]).
136 In our judgment, the imposition of consecutive sentences for the first,
fourth and sixth charges against the Respondent, with an aggregate sentence of
14 years and six months imprisonment, was, on the whole, proportionate to the
gravity of her offences and her high degree of culpability. As we indicated at
[56] above, the normal imprisonment sentence for a fatal case prosecuted under
s 325 of the Penal Code should range from the indicative starting point of
around eight years imprisonment to, in the worst category of cases, the
maximum term of ten years imprisonment. An aggregate imprisonment
sentence of 14 years and six months in the Respondents case was hence not so
much higher than the relevant range as to render it crushing.
Conclusion
137 For these reasons, we allowed the Prosecutions appeal, and enhanced
the sentence for the first charge to nine years and six months imprisonment and
the sentence for the sixth charge to four years imprisonment. We left the
sentences for the third and fourth charges undisturbed at six months and a
years imprisonment respectively.
138 We also ordered the sentences for the first, fourth and sixth charges to
run consecutively, and the sentence for the third charge to run concurrently. This
resulted in an aggregate sentence of 14 years and six months imprisonment,
backdated to 2 August 2014, the date of the Respondents arrest.
57
Coda: Law reform of offences against vulnerable victims
139 The law has always taken a strong stance on crimes against vulnerable
victims. Our courts condemn such offences by considering the victims
vulnerability to be an aggravating factor which is relevant for sentencing
purposes. This, however, may not be sufficient. We therefore invite Parliament
to consider affording the courts the power, when dealing with such offences, in
particular, those against children and young persons, to enhance the permitted
punishment to one and a half times the prescribed maximum penalty for certain
offences.
140 This approach of enhancing the permitted sentencing range by enacting

legislation that identifies a certain class of criminal action as deserving of
harsher punishment than similar criminal conduct is not new. Parliament has
enacted such legislation in relation to certain offences against foreign domestic
workers (for instance, voluntarily causing either hurt or grievous hurt to, or
wrongfully confining such workers) in order to send a clear signal to employers
that the Government takes a serious view of foreign domestic worker abuse: see
s 73 of the Penal Code and Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report
(20 April 1998) vol 68 at cols 19231925. Parliament made this legislative
amendment because foreign domestic workers were recognised as being more
vulnerable to abuse by employers and their immediate family members, and
because the number of such cases of abuse had been on the rise.
141 A similar regime of enhanced penalties has also been imposed for
racially or religiously aggravated offences: see s 74 of the Penal Code and
Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (22 October 2007) vol 83 at
col 2183.
58
142 Recently, the MSF conducted a public consultation on a draft Vulnerable

Adults Bill which proposed (among other things) inserting a new s 74A in the
Penal Code to provide for enhanced penalties of up to one and a half times the
permitted sentencing range for certain offences against vulnerable adults.
Vulnerable adults are defined in this draft Bill as individuals who are:
(a) 18 years of age or older; and (b) unable, by reason of mental or physical
infirmity, disability or incapacity, to protect themselves from abuse, neglect or
self-neglect. This proposed change is entirely consistent with our call for the
courts to be afforded the discretion to enhance sentences for certain offences
against vulnerable victims, especially children and young persons.
143 In the present case, if there had been such a provision affording us this
discretion, we would not have hesitated to enhance the Respondents sentence
for the first charge by one and a half times given the gravity of that offence and
the significant aggravating factors present.
Sundaresh Menon Tay Yong Kwang Steven Chong

Chief Justice Judge of Appeal Judge of Appeal
Kow Keng Siong, Tan Zhongshan, Quek Jing Feng and Soh Weiqi
(Attorney-Generals Chambers) for the appellant;
Sunil Sudheesan, Diana Ngiam and Joel Ng (Quahe Woo &
Palmer LLC) for the respondent.
59

(2017) Sgca 69

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2017) Sgca 69

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(2017) Sgca 69

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the

court and/or redaction pursuant to the publishers duty in compliance

Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No 26 of 2016

Criminal Law Offences Grievous Hurt

Criminal Law Statutory offences Children and Young Persons Act

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing Sentencing Principles

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

2 Following investigations carried out after the childs death, the

3 In these grounds, we examine the relevant sentencing principles for

The factual background

The Respondent and the charges against her

4 The Respondent is a 35-year-old female Singaporean. At the time of her

That you, [BDB],

The events relating to the charges proceeded with

9 On 12 March 2012, the Respondent brought A to KK Womens and

The involvement of the CPS

accidental injuries. The CPS investigated As case and interviewed the

11 A few months later, in November 2012, the Respondent and P moved in

The move to the Eunos flat

16 Meanwhile, A went to take a nap. He was awakened at about 4.30pm

19 At 6.35pm, the Respondent called her sister-in-law for assistance and

20 At around 6.50pm, the Respondents sister-in-law arrived and noticed

21 In the autopsy report, As cause of death was identified as head injury

Psychiatric evaluation of the Respondent

24 The Prosecution and the Defence subsequently agreed to have the

The proceedings and the decision below

28 The Judge then analysed the mitigating factors which he considered

time of the offences. He preferred Dr Guptas evidence on the issue of

29 In respect of the Respondents inability to cope with stressful situations,

The parties arguments on appeal

(a) for the first charge, at least eight years imprisonment;

(b) for the third charge, at least 12 months imprisonment;

(c) for the fourth charge, at least 18 months imprisonment; and

(d) for the sixth charge, at least four years imprisonment.

32 As against this, the Respondents counsel submitted that the Judge

The relevant sentencing principles

33 We first deal with the relevant sentencing principles before we turn to

Offences involving abuse of vulnerable victims

34 The law recognises the special need to protect certain groups of

35 In the specific context of violence against children, in Public Prosecutor

The ultimate relationship of trust and authority is that

36 By maintaining an uncompromising stance against offenders who abuse

37 Among vulnerable victims, young victims are notable for several

39 Where grievous hurt is voluntarily caused, the offence is typically

(g) fracture or dislocation of a bone;

40 A charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt is much more serious than

41 As stated in Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts (LexisNexis,

The different forms of grievous hurt vary in their seriousness. For

42 In a similar vein, C K Thakker et al, Ratanlal & Dhirajlals Law of

The sentencing precedents

43 Before we analyse some of the sentencing precedents under s 325 of the

(1) Cases where death was caused

45 In Firdaus, a three-year-old child was severely beaten on 14 January

Death, it goes without saying, is generally the most serious

under s 325 of the Penal Code of seven years imprisonment and

47 Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused, the circumstances in

48 Next, we briefly consider Public Prosecutor v Mohd Azhar Bin Ghapar

49 Lastly, there is the more recent decision of Public Prosecutor v Zaidah